CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC422C878 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.85pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEBB60B2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD9154706 { width:165.43pt; display:inline-block } .s2055D3B3 { width:16.54pt; display:inline-block } .s31A7A909 { width:217.95pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s978EE78A { height:12.9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4A9D5712 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s976DE78A { height:12.8pt } .sC997E78A { height:16.2pt } .sB932B0A7 { height:16.05pt }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF NAKANI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 10229/10 and 4 others – see appended list)                     JUDGMENT                 STRASBOURG   8 October 2019       This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nakani and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in five applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. The application numbers and the applicants’ personal details are also listed in the appended table. 2.     The applicants were represented by the various NGOs indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     On various dates notice of the applications was given to the Government. In Nakani (no. 10229/10) and Rashidov (no. 22751/10) the Court also gave notice of the applications to the Government in accordance with Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, on 23 February and 26 April 2010 respectively. The first application was granted priority treatment under Rule   41 of the Rules of Court on 3 June 2010. 4.     The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in Chechnya, Ingushetia and other regions of the North Caucasus. They are the parents of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their whereabouts remain unknown. 6 .     The applicants reported the abductions to law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings have been ongoing for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still ongoing. 7.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or other witnesses to both the Court and the domestic investigative authorities. A.     Nakani v. Russia (no. 10229/10) 8.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Georgiy Nakani, who was born in 1988. She and her son lived in their family house in the village of Neytrino in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria. The village, which has just a few hundred inhabitants, is located in the mountains, more than one and half thousand metres above sea level. A permanent police checkpoint was situated on the road leading to and from the settlement. 1.     Background information and the events preceding the abduction of Mr Georgiy Nakani 9 .     According to the applicant, her family was under surveillance by law-enforcement agencies. Since 2002 to 2003 her nephew Mr V. had been under surveillance on the grounds of his religious beliefs. In 2004 the police arrested her youngest son, Mr. S., and forced him to incriminate himself.   In October 2009 they unlawfully arrested and ill-treated her eldest son, Mr   M.A.     In December 2009 her son Georgiy Nakani told her that an officer from the Federal Security Service (FSB), M., had been collecting information about him, and that an unidentified person had warned him that a secret surveillance operation had been set up to prepare for his arrest and that he should not leave his home at night. 2.     Abduction of Mr Georgiy Nakani 10.     At about 11.20 p.m. on 15 December 2009 the applicant’s son Georgiy went to see his cousin, Ms B., who lived about a hundred metres from his home. Some ten minutes later, Ms B. called the applicant and asked her if Georgiy had got back home. She also said that a neighbour had heard a gunshot and seen a man being forced into a silver VAZ car. That car together with a black Priora car, both without registration plates, had driven away at high speed. 3.     Subsequent events 11.     Immediately after the incident the applicant went to Ms B.’s house and talked to the neighbours. One of them, Ms L., said that she had seen Georgiy Nakani being forced into a VAZ car and crying for help. 12.     The applicant immediately reported the incident to the Department of the Interior (the police) in the nearby town of Tyrnauz.   According to her, the police refused to attend and examine the crime scene straight away. The Government disputed that submission. 13.     Having heard from a neighbour that the chief of the criminal investigations unit of the police station, officer   K., had participated in her son’s abduction, the applicant went to the station again. 14.     A few hours later, at about 2.30 a.m. on 16 December 2009, a police officer saw a silver Priora car entering Neytrino, stopping near the police station, taking a passenger and driving away in the opposite direction (see paragraph 35 below). 15 .     At about 3 a.m. on 16 December 2009 officer K. arrived at the police station. By that time the applicant had already been there and accused him of participating in her son’s abduction. According to the applicant, officer   K. was drunk and had fresh bloodstains on his shoes. When she asked about the stains, he told her that he had been hunting and that it was rabbit’s blood. In the presence of witnesses, one of the applicant’s neighbours (relatives) collected a sample of the blood from his shoes and put it in a plastic bag (in the documents submitted, the place it was collected was also referred to as the police station’s entrance). 16.     At about 3.20 a.m. the applicant, who had gone to the checkpoint situated on the road leading to and from the village with her relatives, spotted two cars leaving Neytrino. A traffic police officer tried to stop them; one car passed through without stopping, while the other stopped for a moment and then drove on. The applicant could see the face of the driver clearly. 17 .     According to the applicant, her son was most probably taken from the police station through the checkpoint controlled by FSB officers. A few days later, an officer, A.E., told one of the applicant’s relatives while drunk that FSB officers had detained Georgiy Nakani to extract information from him, and had ended up shooting him in the groin. He had died of his injuries and the FSB servicemen had buried his body somewhere to ensure that his remains would not be easily found. It is not clear whether the applicant informed the investigators what officer A.E. had said. 4.     Criminal investigation 18.     On 16 December 2009 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction, alleging that her son Georgiy Nakani had been arrested by State agents. 19.     Shortly thereafter, the police questioned several witnesses, including the applicant and Ms B. The latter alleged that Mr Nakani had been arrested by State agents driving around in a silver VAZ car and black Priora car. The applicant had informed the investigators that an FSB officer,   M., had recently been making enquiries about her son (see paragraph 9 above). 20.     At around 2 a.m. officers from the police station instructed the traffic police on duty at the checkpoint between Neytrino and Nalchik to check the two cars which had been driving in the direction of Nalchik. 21.     At 3.20 p.m. the investigators examined the crime scene. They found a knitted black hat belonging to Georgiy Nakani and traces of blood, which were later positively matched with his blood type. 22.     According to the applicant, she asked officer K. to save the video recordings from the CCTV cameras at the police station showing the abductor’s cars. The officer reassured her that he had already done so and had even sent them to Nalchik for forensic examination. 23.     On 17 December 2009 the applicant complained to the Elbrus prosecutor about the police’s refusal to examine the crime scene immediately after her son’s abduction. 24.     On 17 December 2009 the Elbrus district investigations department opened criminal case no. 76/60-09 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) into the events of 15 December 2009. 25.     On an unspecified date between 16 and 19 December 2009 the applicant’s relatives provided the investigators with the blood sample collected by them at the police station (see paragraph 15 above). 26.     On 19 December 2009 the investigators questioned officer K. He confirmed that at about 4 a.m. on 16 December 2009 he had spoken to the applicant. Having heard her complaint about her son’s disappearance, he had driven her relatives around Tyrnauz in his car searching for the abductors’ vehicles, but to no avail. 27.     On 21 December 2009 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 28 .     On the same day she submitted that a witness to her son’s abduction had identified officer K. as one of the perpetrators. He was afraid to confirm that statement officially out of fear of reprisal (see paragraph 31 below). 29 .     On 23 December 2009 two traffic police officers, A.A. and R.Sh., were questioned. They stated that on the night of 15 to 16 December 2009 they had been manning the traffic checkpoint and had been instructed to check two cars – a black Priora car and silver VAZ car without registration plates driving in the direction of Nalchik. The applicant and her relatives had also been at the checkpoint. At about 3.40   a.m. they had seen a black and a silver Priora passing through the checkpoint. Officer A.A. had ordered them to stop. The black Priora had driven on, ignoring his order, while the silver Priora had stopped. The driver had shown him a laissez-passer . As soon as the applicant and her relatives had attempted to approach the car, it had driven off towards Nalchik. The officers had reported the incident to their headquarters and tried to follow the black Priora, but to no avail. The officers’ report to the headquarters was also joined to the criminal case file. 30 .     On 25 December 2009, having seized footage from the CCTV cameras at the police station, the investigators found out that the recording for the period between 15 and 16 December 2009 had been deleted owing to the expiry of the seven-day storage period. 31 .     On 3 January 2010 the investigators questioned Mr A.Kh. (the witness referred to by the applicant on 21 December 2009). He denied that any pressure had been placed on him by officer K. (see paragraph   28 above). 32.     On 9 January 2010 the investigators requested the traffic police to submit the CCTV recordings from the checkpoint between Neytrino and Nalchik. On 14 January 2010 the traffic police replied that the checkpoint was not equipped with CCTV. 33 .     On 11 January 2010 the investigators questioned Z.N., another traffic police officer who had been on duty on the night of the abduction. According to him, the abductors’ vehicles had not been stopped at the checkpoint. 34.     On 13 January 2010 the applicant was questioned and submitted that Mr A.Kh. had witnessed the abduction and stated that one of the perpetrators had resembled officer K., but that he was afraid to provide any official confirmation of that to the investigation out of fear of reprisal. 35 .     On 1 February 2010 the investigators questioned another police officer, A.O., who stated that at about 2.30 a.m. on 16 December 2009 he had seen a silver Priora car entering Neytrino, stopping near the police station, taking a passenger and driving away in the opposite direction. 36.     On 12 February 2010 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the blood sample collected at the police station (in the order, the date it was collected was mistakenly stated as 25 September 2009). The experts could not identify the origin of the blood owing to the small size of the sample. 37 .     On 7 April 2010 the applicant asked the investigators to identify FSB officer M. (see paragraph 9 above), stating that she had already asked the investigators to take that step. The investigators confirmed that an officer with that name had indeed worked for the regional FSB department. 38.     On 9 April 2010 they asked the Kabardino-Balkaria FSB to provide them with information as to whether officer M. had worked there. On 16   April 2010 the FSB replied that they were unable to comply with the request. 39.     On 7 May 2010 the investigators questioned the police officer who had interviewed the applicant on 16 December 2009. He submitted that following the applicant’s allegation against the FSB officer M., he had contacted the FSB and established that he had worked there. He had been sent there on a mission from the FSB Department in the Stavropol Region in early 2008 and had returned one month later. 40.     On 13 May 2010 the investigators asked the Stavropol regional department of the FSB to confirm or refute that information. On 17   May 2010 the FSB replied that their officers had not been sent on a mission to Kabardino-Balkaria. 41 .     On 14 May 2010 the investigators questioned the FSB officer who had informed the investigators that officer M. had left the FSB in 2008. He could not recall having had that conversation with either the investigators or officer M. 42.     On 17 May 2010 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was then resumed on 31 May 2010. 43 .     On 15 August 2010 the investigators questioned Ms M. Zh., who had been at the police station on 16 December 2009. She stated that a blood sample had been taken by one of the applicant’s relatives on the police station’s entrance porch. 44.     On 3 July 2010 the investigators suspended the proceedings again. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. B.     Rashidov v. Russia (no. 22751/10) 45.     The applicant is the father of Mr Magomed Rashidov, who was born in 1984. At the material time, he and his son lived with other relatives in the mountain village of Gubden in Dagestan. Permanent police checkpoints were situated on the roads leading to and from the settlement. 1.     Background information and the events preceding the abduction of Mr Magomed Rashidov 46.     Mr Magomed Rashidov is a cousin of Mr M. Vagabov, allegedly the leader of an illegal armed group operating in Dagestan. 47 .     On 11 December 2009 several police officers carried out a search of the applicant’s house in connection with Mr Rashidov’s suspected involvement in a recent explosion in the village. The police officers found nothing prohibited. According to the applicant, they were interested in the layout of the house and enquired about the location of the light switches, even though the search was being conducted in daytime and no lights were needed. The officers took Mr Rashidov’s foreign travel passport and left. 2.     Abduction of Mr Magomed Rashidov and subsequent events 48 .     At about 12.30 a.m. on 25 December 2009 a group of seven or eight armed men in black uniforms and balaclavas forced their way into the applicant’s house. They were wearing military boots and speaking Russian. They forced the applicant and his wife (Ms U.R.), their two daughters (Ms   A.R. and Ms N.R.) and Mr Rashidov’s wife (Ms B.R.) to the ground and ordered them to hand over jewellery, money and mobile telephones. Several injuries, including bruises, were inflicted on Ms U.R. Shortly afterwards, the armed men escorted Mr Rashidov outside, placed him in one of the two vehicles (a silver VAZ-2114 vehicle, and another one whose make and model the applicant could not remember) parked next to the applicant’s house and drove away. They also took several items of jewellery and mobile telephones belonging to Mr Rashidov, Ms A.R. and Ms N.R. 49 .     According to the applicant, some of the abductors must have been present during the search of 11 December 2009 because they knew the layout of the rooms and the location of the light switches in the house. 50 .     On 29 December 2009 the applicant received a text message from Mr Rashidov’s mobile telephone number saying that he was well and that the applicant should not worry. According to the applicant, the message was written in the Dargin dialect, which was not common in Gubden. 3.     Criminal investigation 51 .     Immediately after the abduction, on 25 December 2009, the applicant went to the local police station and reported the incident to officer K. As submitted by the applicant, and not contested by the Government, officer K. refused to take any measures, telling the applicant that the police would come to his house the following day. 52 .     At about 3 p.m. on 26 December 2009 police officers examined the crime scene. They collected a bloodstained bed sheet and a footwear impression. The items were joined to the case file as evidence. 53.     On 1 January 2010 the Kaspiyskiy inter-district investigations department of the Investigative Committee opened criminal case no.   0295 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) and Article   162 (robbery). A comparison of the documents from the case file suggests that the copy furnished by the Government was missing certain pages. 54.     On an unspecified date at the beginning of January 2010 the investigators learned that Mr Rashidov had been suspected of membership of an illegal armed group. 55.     Between 3 and 7 January 2010 the applicant, Ms B.R. (Mr   Rashidov’s wife), as well as Ms A.R., Ms N.R. and Ms U.R. (his two sisters and mother respectively), were granted victim status in the case and questioned. Their statements to the investigators were similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. 56.     On 5 January 2010 the investigators decided to pursue three main theories for the abduction. These included Mr Rashidov’s abduction by members of the law-enforcement authorities because of his suspected terrorist activities, his abduction by relatives of law-enforcement agents killed by members of the illegal armed group of which Mr Rashidov might have been a member, and his abduction by members of illegal armed groups. 57.     On 12 January 2010 the applicant’s legal representative asked the investigators to obtain information about telephone calls made from Mr   Rashidov’s mobile telephone, starting from the date of his abduction. 58.     On 15 January, 3 February and 30 March 2010 the investigators questioned M.T., R.M. and S.Kh. (the police officers in charge of the search of the applicant’s house on 11 December 2009) about the circumstances of the search and their possible involvement in Mr   Rashidov’s abduction. The officers denied any involvement therein. 59.     On 4 February 2010 the applicant asked the Dagestan Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor of Dagestan to assist in the search for his son. He stated that that the group of abductors had consisted of eight men in black uniforms who had acted in a very organised manner and had been familiar with the layout of the house, including the location of the light switches. Referring to those facts, he alleged that the perpetrators had been State agents involved in the house search on 11   December 2009. The reluctance of the investigating authorities to follow up the allegation supported that theory. 60.     It appears that the above letter was forwarded to the investigators. On 15 February 2010 they informed the applicant of the steps taken in the case. 61.     On an unspecified date in January or February 2010 the applicant complained to the Karabudakhkentskiy district prosecutor’s office, alleging that the investigation had been ineffective. On 18 February 2010 he was informed that the prosecutor’s office had ordered the investigators to remedy defects in the criminal proceedings and speed up the investigation. 62.     On 9 and 10 February, and then on 29 March 2010, the investigators asked various State authorities, detention facilities and medical facilities to inform them whether they had detained Mr Rashidov or provided him with medical treatment. They also requested information about whether a silver VAZ-2114 vehicle was used by the district police department. The replies received stated that Mr Rashidov had not been in custody. 63 .     On 15 February 2010 the investigators applied to the Karabudakhkentskiy District Court in Dagestan for authorisation to obtain information from the local mobile telephone service provider about the calls made from the mobile telephones of Mr Rashidov, Ms A.R. and Ms   N.R. between 24   December 2009 and 14 February 2010. On the following day, 16   February 2010, the court gave its authorisation and on 23 March 2010 the investigators obtained the information from the service provider. On 27   March 2010 they examined it, noting in particular that on 29 December 2009 a text message had been sent to the applicant from Mr Magomed Rashidov’s telephone, which had been physically located in Kaspiysk, Dagestan, a town about 50 km from Gubden. 64.     On 15 February 2010 a medical expert examined Ms   U.R., recorded her injuries and concluded that they had been inflicted with a hard blunt object, possibly on 25 December 2009. 65.     On 17 February 2010 the investigators examined the crime scene again. No evidence was collected. 66.     On 18 February 2010 the investigators questioned officer M.R., whose statement concerning the search of 11 December 2009 and the subsequent abduction were similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. 67.     In March 2010 medical experts examined the bed sheet collected at the crime scene and concluded that the bloodstains on it were human and contained B and H antigens. 68.     On 12 March 2010 the investigators asked the local police to carry out operational search measures concerning Mr Rashidov’s possible involvement in illegal activities. The police replied that he had been on a list of persons suspected of membership of illegal armed groups. For two or three months in the summer of 2009 he had joined an illegal group hiding in the mountains in Dagestan. 69.     On 30 March 2010 the investigators obtained similar information from the Directorate for Combating Extremism of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior. 70.     On 26 March 2010 the investigators questioned the applicant, Ms   B.R., Ms U.R. and Ms A.R again. They stated, in particular, that several months prior to Mr Rashidov’s abduction, on 23 May 2009, he had left home without having informed anybody of his intention to leave. He had been away for about a month and a half and had then returned. In addition, the witnesses stated that they suspected that R.M., the officer in charge of the search of the applicant’s house on 11 December 2009, had been involved in the abduction of Mr Rashidov. 71.     On 27 March 2010 the investigators questioned R.M. again. He denied seizing Mr Rashidov’s travel passport and enquiring about the layout of the house and the location of the light switches. 72.     On 30 March 2010 the investigator altered the legal classification of the offences under investigation to Articles 105 (murder), 126 (abduction) and 164 (high-value theft) of the Criminal Code. 73.     On 1 May 2010 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. The investigation is still ongoing. C.     Dzeytova v. Russia (no. 35915/10) 74.     The applicant was the mother of Mr Khamzat Dzeytov, who was born in 1977. She died on 7 October 2013. On 7 February 2019 her husband (and son’s father), Mr Akhmet Dzeytov, expressed his wish to pursue the application in her stead. 1.     Background information and the events preceding the abduction of Mr Khamzat Dzeytov 75 .     In October 2008 the applicant’s husband and Mr Khamzat Dzeytov were detained by Operational Search Bureau no. 2 of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior. The next day the applicant’s husband was released. A few days later she learned from a lawyer that her son had been detained, allegedly because of his close relationship with his sister and brother-in-law (Mr A.M.), both of whom were on the authorities’ wanted list. 76.     Mr Khamzat Dzeytov was subsequently convicted of joining an illegal armed group and given a suspended prison sentence. According to the police, the whereabouts of his sister, who was allegedly hiding in the mountain forests of Chechnya, was unknown. 77.     After Mr Khamzat Dzeytov’s conviction, a police officer from the Sunzhenskiy district police department (“the Sunzhenskiy ROVD”), K.M., regularly visited the applicant’s house in a VAZ-21014 car, enquiring about Mr Khamzat Dzeytov. 78.     On several occasions between 5 and 7 July 2009 the applicant saw a grey VAZ-2114 car driven by officer K.M. parked next to the grain store where she worked in the village of Assinovskaya. Three other police officers from the Sunzhenskiy ROVD,   M., K. and A., were in the car. 79 .     On 7 July 2009 the applicant’s husband saw four police officers waiting for someone in a blue VAZ-2107 car parked next to their house. 80.     According to the statements of the chief of the criminal investigations unit in Achkhoy-Martan, at that time several special operations “involving a great number of forces and means” were being carried out in the Achkhoy-Martan, Sunzha, and Urus-Martan districts of Chechnya (see paragraph 110 below). 2.     Abduction of Mr Khamzat Dzeytov 81.     On occasion Mr Khamzat Dzeytov worked the applicant’s shifts at the grain store in Assinovskaya. At 11 a.m. on 7   July 2009 she asked him to work her shift and went to the nearby village of Bamut to collect her pension. At 2 p.m. the same day Khamzat Dzeytov called the applicant from home and she asked him to return to the grain store as she was still in Bamut. At 3 p.m. the applicant returned to the store, but her son was not there. According to another of the applicant’s sons (Mr Sh. D.), Mr   Khamzat Dzeytov had left the house for the grain store at 2.30 p.m. He had tried to call his brother eight minutes later, but his telephone was switched off. 82.     According to the applicant, Mr Khamzat Dzeytov was abducted by State agents on the way to the grain store between 2.30 and 2.40 p.m. on 7   July 2009. 3.     Subsequent events 83.     On the evening of 7 July 2009 a police officer from the Sunzhenskiy ROVD told the applicant that Mr Khamzat Dzeytov was being detained at the police station and gave her the telephone number of A., the police officer allegedly responsible for his detention. When the applicant asked Mr   A. about her son’s detention the following day, he denied any knowledge of it. 84 .     On or about 23 July 2009 the chief of the criminal search department of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD, officer T.M., told the applicant that her son had been arrested because of his brother-in-law, who was wanted by the authorities for involvement in illegal armed groups. Later officer T.M. told the applicant’s family that Mr Khamzat Dzeytov was being detained in the village of Khosi-Yurt, Chechnya. 85 .     In April 2010 the applicant went to see the investigator, M., at the police station. He told her that he knew where her son was being detained, and that he would be released if she informed him of her daughter’s whereabouts. 86.     On an unspecified date the applicant was visited by an FSB officer, S., who asked her to give him her son’s telephone number. The applicant gave it to him and several days later he told her that on 12, 13 and 14   July 2009 several outgoing calls from that telephone had been registered in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya. On 24 July 2009 several other calls had been registered, but they had been made in the Sunzhenskiy district of Chechnya. 4.     Official investigation into the incident 87 .     As submitted by the applicant, and not contested by the Government, on 8 July 2009 she went to the Sunzhenskiy ROVD to complain about her son’s disappearance, but the police officers refused to register her complaint. 88 .     On 9 July 2009 the applicant complained about the police officers’ refusal to the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district investigations department (“the investigators”). 89.     On 10 September 2009 the applicant complained to the Achkhoy ‑ Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office about her son’s disappearance and the authorities’ inaction in that regard. She provided several theories as to her son’s whereabouts based on the information she had received from officers S. and T.M. She also mentioned rumours that her son had been taken into custody by the fourth company (military unit) headed by A.D. and stationed in Grozny. 90 .     On 19 September 2009 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 91 .     On 28 October 2009 the investigators opened criminal case no.   85012 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The copy of the criminal case file submitted by the Government lacked certain documents. The material in the Court’s possession suggests that the investigation progressed as follows. 92.     On 29 October 2009 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. Her statement was similar to the account described above. She alleged that Mr Khamzat Dzeytov had been arrested by State agents on account of his ties with a member of an illegal armed group, Mr A.M. 93.     On 30 October 2009 the investigators questioned Mr Akhmet Dzeytov, who endorsed the statement given by his wife. 94.     On 5 November 2009 the investigators obtained a copy of the applicant’s complaint of 10 September 2009. 95.     On the same day they questioned Mr Akhmet Dzeytov again, who submitted, with reference to officer T.M., that his son was allegedly being detained in Khosi-Yurt. 96.     On 12, 14 and 30 November 2009 the investigators questioned three officers from the Sunzhenskiy ROVD (Ch.G., K.M., and M.Ch.). They submitted that in July 2009 a special operation had been carried out in the applicant’s village aimed at arresting members of an illegal armed group. The federal forces had killed Mr   A.M. and his brother Mr   R.M., Mr   Khamzat Dzeytov’s brother-in-law. The officers stated that their unit had not arrested Mr Khamzat Dzeytov. 97.     At the questioning officer K.M. stated that he had previously worked on Mr   Khamzat Dzeytov’s file. He had therefore known about his conviction and his sister’s involvement in the illegal armed group headed by Mr   A.M. According to his information, Khamzat Dzeytov’s sister was hiding from the federal forces in the mountain forests. In reply to the investigators’ question about his service car, he replied that he used a grey VAZ 2114 car (the same colour and model of car had been seen next to the grain store where the applicant had been working between 5 and 7   July 2009). Like the other two officers, officer K.M. denied his involvement in the applicant’s son’s arrest. He stated that at the relevant time he had been on a service mission in Rostov-on-Don. 98.     On 30 November 2009 the investigators questioned the chief of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD, officer M.Ch., who submitted that on 7 July 2009 no special operations had been carried out in the applicant’s village. 99.     On 15 December 2009 Mr Akhmet Dzeytov was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 100.     On 17 December 2009 the investigators cross-examined Mr   Akhmet Dzeytov and officer K.M. The latter confirmed that on 7 July 2009 he had been on a mission. 101.     On 28 December 2009 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 102 .     On 14 January 2010 the deputy Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor identified several shortcomings in the investigation and ordered the investigators to rectify them. In particular, he requested that they: question the head of the local administration and the imam, as well as the shop assistant who had seen the applicant’s son shortly before his abduction; identify and question the FSB officer S.; establish whether there had been checkpoints on the road to and from Assinovskaya and what cars had passed through them; collect documents to support the alibi of officer K.M.; and obtain Khamzat Dzeytov’s telephone records for analysis. 103.     On 14 January 2010 the investigation was resumed. 104.     On 28 January 2010 the applicant was questioned again. She insisted that her son had been abducted by State agents and suggested that apparently with the help of information extracted from Mr Khamzat Dzeytov, law-enforcement agents had managed to locate Mr A.M. three days later. 105.     On 10 February 2010 officer K.M. was questioned again. On that occasion he told the investigators that on 7 July 2009 he had undergone medical treatment in Rostov-on-Don and that I.T. had been with him. They had both taken the train to get there. 106 .     On 14 February 2010 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 107.     On 22 June 2010 the applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the investigation file. Her request was refused on the grounds that access would only be allowed on completion of the investigation. 108.     On 22 August 2010 the proceedings were resumed. 109.     On 25 August and 14 September 2010 the investigators questioned officers from the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district investigations department, including T.M., who denied having told the applicant any information about her son’s whereabouts. 110 .     On 16 and 17 September 2010 the applicant was cross-examined with officers T.M. and K.M. They all confirmed their previous submissions. Officer T.M. also mentioned that at that time special operations “involving a great number of forces and means” were being carried out in the Achkhoy ‑ Martan, Sunzha, and Urus-Martan districts of Chechnya. 111.     On 18 September 2010 the investigators searched the applicant’s house and collected her son’s shirt for forensic examination. The experts subsequently found traces of human sweat on the shirt with A antigens. 112 .     On 22 September 2010 the investigation was suspended again. 113 .     On 26 January 2011 the Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor noted several shortcomings in the investigation, including the investigators’ failure to establish why the applicant’s criminal complaint of 9 July 2009 (see paragraph 88 above) had not been duly registered, identify the owners of blue VAZ-2107 car, collect documents confirming officer K.M.’s alibi, and obtain Khamzat Dzeytov’s telephone records. The prosecutor stated that in order to carry out these steps, the investigators had to resume the proceedings. 114.     On 2 February 2011 the proceedings were resumed. 115.     At some point the investigators learned that after the killing of Mr   A.M. by law-enforcement agents, Khamzat Dzeytov’s sister had blown herself up in Grozny, causing the death of two police officers. 116.     On 5 February 2011 several police officers were questioned. They stated that the applicant had not complained that her son had been abducted on 9 July 2009. 117.     On 2 March 2011 the investigation was suspended again. It is still ongoing. D.     Gazdiyev v. Russia (no. 46142/11) 118.     The applicant was the father of Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev, who was born in 1978. On 31 March 2015 the applicant died. On 29 July 2016 his wife (and son’s mother), Ms   Maddan Gazdiyeva, expressed her wish to pursue the application in the applicant’s stead. 1.     Background information and the events preceding the abduction of Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev 119 .     In 2004 Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev was asked by his friend Mr. K. if he would take him and his wife by car to the local hospital. On the way there they were stopped by FSB officers, who opened fire and killed Mr.   K. Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev was taken to the Karabulak police station in Ingushetia and released after being questioned. 120 .     On 31 May 2007 a group of Ingushetia FSB officers arrived at the applicant’s house to conduct a search. One of them, officer A., showed the applicant the search warrant. The applicant pointed out to the officer that the name on the document was not his, but officer A. proceeded with the search anyway. Nothing of interest was found during the search and the officers left. 121 .     According to the applicant’s submissions, supported by media reports from the news website the Caucasian Knot ( Кавказский узел ), a large-scale preventive operation started in Ingushetia on 25 July 2007. In the context of that operation, 2,500 servicemen were sent to the region for that mission. The operation lasted until 2 December 2007. 2.     Abduction of Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev 122 .     At about 1 p.m. on 8 August 2007 the applicant’s neighbour, Mr   A. Ye., was driving through the settlement of Karabulak in Ingushetia. At a crossroads he saw five or six armed men in camouflage uniforms, balaclavas and khaki helmets standing by a white Gazel minivan. Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev was standing next to his car, a silver VAZ ‑ 2110 parked next to the minivan, and talking to a man of Slavic appearance in civilian clothing. Mr A.Ye. stopped his car further down the road and telephoned Mr A.O., Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev’s cousin, to explain the situation. A few minutes later Mr A.Ye. returned to where he had just seen the applicant’s son, but no one was there. Mr A.O. attempted to call Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev several times, but he did not pick up. About half an hour later his telephone was switched off. Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev has not been seen since. 3.     Subsequent events 123.     On 9 August 2007 the applicant complained about his son’s disappearance to Mr B.M., a deputy of the Parliament of Ingushetia. 124 .     According to the latter, on 10 August 2007, he was told by the Prosecutor of Ingushetia, Mr Yu.T., that law-enforcement agents had stopped Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev’s car for a random check. When they had realised that the passenger in the car was a member of an illegal armed group, they had shot that person dead on the spot. Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev had been taken for an identity check and then released. 125 .     On 11 August 2007 the applicant and his relatives, Mr M.U. and Mr   B.E., had a meeting with the President of Ingushetia, Mr M. Zyazikov. He told them that Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev had been arrested by the FSB and that there was no evidence of his involvement in any crime. He reassured the applicant that his son had not gone missing. 126 .     On 15 August 2007 a staff member of the Representation of the Russian President in Ingushetia, Mr V.T., informed Mr B.M. that Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev had allegedly been arrested by the FSB on suspicion of involvement in illegal armed groups and that he had received this information from the Prosecutor, Mr Yu.T. When the deputy asked Mr   Yu.T. about it, he denied having any information concerning Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev’s whereabouts. 4.     Official investigation into the incident 127.     On 8 August 2007 the applicant complained to the Karabulak prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia, alleging that his son had been abducted by unidentified security service agents of Slavic appearance. 128.     On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 129.     On 9 August 2007 the applicant lodged the same complaint with a number of other law-enforcement agencies. 130 .     On 10 August 2007 the Karabulak prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27520024 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The Government provided the Court with a copy of the criminal case file comprising up to 285 pages. The comparison of that with the volume of the material sent to the domestic courts (708 pages, see paragraph 165 below) indicates that certain documents were missing. 131.     On 10 August 2007 the investigators also questioned Mr A.Ye. and Mr   A.K. (a village resident who lived in the vicinity of the crime scene). Mr   A.Ye. gave a statement similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. Mr A.K. stated that he had not heard anything about the abduction of Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev. 132.     On the next day, 11 August 2007, the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. He described the circumstances of his son’s abduction which he had heard from his other son, Mr   T.G. after he had spoken to the eyewitness, Mr A.Ye. 133.     On 12 August 2007 the investigators questioned three police officers on duty at the checkpoint in the vicinity of the Karabulak police station. They stated that neither a VAZ ‑ 2110 car nor a Gazel minivan had passed through their checkpoint on 8 August 2007. 134 .     On 10 November 2007 the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 135 .     On 30 November 2007 the proceedings were resumed. 136.     On 5 December 2007 the investigators questioned Mr A.Ye. again. He submitted that he could not identify the man who had been standing next to Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev just before his abduction, but described his appearance and clothing. 137.     In the meantime the investigators sent a number of enquiries to the law-enforcement authorities with a view to establishing the whereabouts of the applicant’s son, but no relevant information was obtained. 138 .     On 30 December 2007 the investigation was suspended. It was then resumed on 23 July 2008. 139.     On 25 July 2008 the investigators questioned a former member of the Parliament of Ingushetia, Mr B.M. He submitted that on 9 August 2007 (at that time he was an active member of parliament) he had received a call from the applicant complaining about his son’s disappearance. The next day the Prosecutor of Ingushetia, Mr Yu.T., had described to him the circumstances of Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev’s arrest. Five days later a staff member of the Representation of the Russian President in Ingushetia, Mr   M.V., had informed him (Mr   B.M.) that Ibragim Gazdiyev had allegedly been arrested by the FSB. Later Mr B.M. had invited Mr Yu.T. and a staff member of the Representation of the Russian President in Ingushetia, Mr   V.T., to the Parliament, where Mr V.T. had stated that he had received the information in question from Mr Yu.T. The latter suggested that he had must have been misunderstood. 140.     On 26 July 2008 Ms   Maddan Gazdiyeva was questioned. Her statement was similar to those of the applicant. 141 .     On 23 August 2008 the investigation was suspended. 142 .     It appears that on 28 January 2009 the proceedings were resumed, and on 29 February 2009 were suspended again. 143 .     On 4 March 2009, following criticism by the investigators’ superiors on account of the investigators’ failure, amongst other things, to obtain the abducted man’s telephone records and take steps to establish the whereabouts of his car, the investigators resumed the proceedings. 144.     On 11 March 2009 the investigators opened a criminal case no.   2952007 into the car theft under Article 161 of the Criminal Code (robbery). On 12 March 2009 it was joined with the criminal case into Mr   Ibragim Gazdiyev’s abduction. The new joined case was assigned the number 27520024. 145 .     On 4 April 2009 the proceedings were suspended again. 146 .     Four days later, on 8 April 2009, the investigators resumed the proceedings. On 8 May 2009 they were suspended again without any investigative steps being taken. 147 .     On 15 June 2009 the decision to suspend the proceedings was quashed as ill-founded, in particular because the investigators had not obtained Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev’s telephone records and had failed to question either President Zyazikov or Mr V.T. 148.     On 15